I don’t think that is the desire for any hotel chain or for any council, but it does happen. It is probably more likely for homeless families rather than single homeless people. And I think Hamilton Lodge has demonstrated little adverse impact of housing local homeless families in our community.
I agree - the additional storeys I think makes the proposal less appealing. I also prefer the brickwork rather than the cladding. I’m all for investment, but it seems to me that the revised proposal is less attractive.
When I saw the first image with fewer stories, I presumed that they are expecting to ask for a lot (second image), but will accept a building according to the first image.
I support a hotel, even at the larger scale, but I don’t support either with a lack of parking provisioning as it would be highly unpleasant for the local residents. You don’t build a hotel on the south circular and expect people to all arrive by train .
Also, expecting guests to pay for parking rather than park on local roads is almost intentionally ignorant. You may as well suggest that local residents just park in the local car park if they can’t find a space near their house - it’s not that expensive for overnight parking, right?
I think these days, it’s been decided that you don’t allow car parking in new developments, because it encourages car use. So people just park on the roads instead. Such is the logic of the planning system.
For instance, a new school was built round the corner from ours with no car parking spaces for staff. So they all park in the side roads and the parents ignore the yellow lines and junction rules. But on paper, it’s a success as they’ve deterred car use yeah?
Dunno what the answer is. Probably allowing car parking with a big tax on the developer to pay for transport/ trees etc… although the transport contribution will obviously line the pockets of private owners, so it’ll probably be spent on cycle lanes. The only other alternative is punishing residents with parking restrictions I suppose.
I very rarely stay in hotels with car park provision, so don’t know what the big surprise is.
And what is the big objection to just two extra stories above the neighbouring block of flats? I think it’s a bit rich to buy into a new-build block of flats which are significantly higher than 95% of the buildings in Forest Hill, and then complain as soon as another slightly higher rise building is put up next to you…
I haven’t objected to anything ;), but I think it’s a nice pub. Often take family there for a bite and a drink and enjoy the welcoming atmosphere for children. Whereas there’s a cracking hotel site where the portacabin place is. There was a proposal for flats there I think?, but proximity to the railway would probably suit a hotel better and that area is definitely in need of a boost.
Can’t we have a nice pub and a hotel, instead of a hotel and a patch of wasteland? I’m aware there is a restaurant plan, but it’s not likely to be the same.
A glance at google maps shows Forest Hill Cars seem to be sat on some prime real estate too, considering their cars seem to stop in the road.
Anyway. Just an opinion.
The handover date is 7th June or July next year, can’t remember which, so I expect it to be up and running sometime in 2020.
I’ll be sad to see Julia and Richard go, little Josh too. They always (especially Julia) got involved in community goings on, as @AllInnOne
I wish them all the best in the future
I have not bought into the new block of flats, I bought my flat in 1996 when the new flats were just shack shops with finches removal firm on the corner. I live in the flats on Church Vale and my objection is as well as blocking our light, balcony’s on that side will look directly into my living room.
I as a night worker have endured a lot of noise with new developments but this will literally be outside my bedroom window not allowing me to sleep enough to do my job even adequately and then the end result being less privacy.
The development across the tracks on Dartmouth Road at number 53 is six storey on higher ground so will probably be higher than seven storeys on that site. I think we should be putting forward a general rule for the height of developments in Forest Hill rather than individual rules.
The lack of parking provision is standard now but Hindsley Place has controlled parking so are probably more able to park near their houses than most of us.
I think these days, it’s been decided that you don’t allow car parking in new developments, because it encourages car use.
Looking at rental listings for City Walk apartments, it also seems that only a few of them have allocated parking too.
Proximity to the station would seem to justify this I guess, but the overground is already over capacity at peak times and Canada Water rammed.
Yes, CW is big. Probably too big. But this is bigger, closer to its neighbouring buildings, thus a bigger threat to residual daylight for flats and houses alike, under-provided for in terms of parking schemes, and a better site exists for a structure of its size elsewhere. So I still think it’s worth pressing to get closer to the original plan.
It’s probably an excuse rather than what triggered the decision to not provide parking being made. However, I do think that hotel guests for security reasons tend to prefer more official car parks even if they’re paid than roadside, especially as they’re unlikely to know the local area well and might see it as possibly risky southeast London. Those who don’t, will find space in nearby roads as will residents. There is enough of it assuming that an up to five minute walk to your destinantion is acceptable.
I’m only speculating, but I suspect the developer may have added an extra storey that he is prepared to take off in the spirit of listening to neighbour’s concerns.
Equally, I think that the original proposal is unlikely to stack up financially and would also be lower than most other new developments in central Forest Hill so it might be rightly seen as a bit of a waste of floor space.
Personally, I find the architectural quality much more important than the exact number of floors but then I’m not an immediate neighbour.
If this goes ahead there needs to be some consideration again on pedestrian crossings near the station.
Yes @Paul_R - but let’s hope some S.106 contribution from this developer doesn’t somehow skew things in favour of the crossing being up that end instead of it being nearer the subway.
I especially like the mockup which implies we’re all driving Porsches and Astons around the area. Personally I’d be happy to have a decent hotel in the area as currently when we have visitors, there’s nowhere for them to stay nearby. Sorry it’s in your backyard!
@Anotherjohn - s106 monies have now been replaced by Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).
Existing traffic and patron congestion during functions on Perry Vale at the JK Banquet Hall are severe (some may say unacceptably so). The narrowness of the pavement on that same side of the road may be being potentially worsened by potential new patrons of the 89 bedroom hotel who may be being steered to make use of the Perry Vale public car park.
There may be a case to be made to demand an increase in CIL payments from all three of the new developments to address a proper reconfiguration scheme that addresses all of the issues raised for that entire area.
Nearly forgot - here is a useful link to an explanation of CIL:
Might another candidate for CIL be the provision of a lift to access Forest Hill station from that side? I’m sure this would be in the strong interest of any hotel business on the proposed site and would be of major benefit to the local area.
S106 hasn’t been replaced. CIL and S106 work together now. The council could request s106 monies to be put towards mitigating the impact of the development on items such as traffic calming or pedestrian crossings. But they can’t increase CIL payments on a development by development basis. CIL is charged at a flat rate per type of floorspace.